In general, judging which categories don't need the protection of copyright amounts to deciding which categories of readers don't matter. It's elitist and unhelpful.
I agree if you say "don't need protection", though I think that's a harsher criticism of my proposal than is warranted. Maybe there are categories which need stronger protection that what I proposed, which is fine.
But I think you're also not considering the fact that _entry into the public domain_ is also a huge positive value to the reader.
So, we need to have a balance between adequately incentivizing works, and works entering the public domain. I'd argue the current balance we've struck is totally fucking broken, and gravely harming readers of all types.
But, I'm open to the criticism that we would run the risk of this scheme of not adequately incentivizing certain works. I think that's good feedback.
Another thing to note also is that kids had stories long before Disney was making VHS tapes and before we had Scholastic pumping out picture books. It’s not like we as humans are incapable of creating without a monetary incentive.
Equating retaining ownership by copyright to protection, is an example of reasoning used to abuse copyright. The products still exist when they enter the public domain and need no additional protection, that copyright offers. It's really disturbing to see commenters repeat the attitudes that left copyright in such a degenerate state.
Children's stories have been made since time immemorial.